RESEARCH METHODS FLASHCARDS

Types of experimental methods

Lab= highly controlled

Field= in a natural setting increasing mundane realism

Natural= No control/manipulation of IV

Quasi= naturally occurring, IV= gender/age

Pros of lab experiment

PRO= High control over variables

• replicable

• Precise measurement

• High internal validity

• Useful for testing theories

Cons of lab experiment

CON= low ecological validity (artificial)

• demand characteristics= pp may guess the aim and change their behaviour

• Researcher effects= experimenter may unintentionally influence pp

• Ethical issues= high control=stress ethical issues

• Behaviour may be artificial

Pros of field experiment

PRO= high ecological validity (studies in real life environment)

• reduced demand characteristics

• Can study behaviour in real life

• More valid behaviour

Cons of field experiment

CON= less control over extraneous variables

• harder to replicate

• Ethical issues= no consent

• Time consuming + expensive

• Cause and effect less certain ( because of reduced control its harder to be sure the IV caused the DV

Pros of natural experiment

PRO= can study variables that would be ethical/ impossible to manipulate ( researchers can investigate real life events like deprivation or disasters)

• high ecological validity (real life)

• Reduced demand characteristics

• Useful for real world research

Cons of natural experiment

CON= little control over extraneous variables

• cannot randomly allocate pp (pp variables may affect findings)

• Difficult to replicate (naturally occurring events are hard to reproduce)

• Cause and effect is harder to establish bc the IV is not controlled by researchers

• Ethical issues may still occur

Pros of quasi experiment

PRO= useful when the IV cannot be manipulated (researches can study pre-existing differences such as age, gender, mental disorders)

• more ethical than manipulating certain variables (avoids creating harmful conditions)

• Can study real life characteristics (findings may have good external validity)

• Allows research into naturally occurring groups

Cons of quasi experiment

• No random allocation (pp variables may differ between groups and effect results)

• Low internal validity (researchers cannot be sure the IV caused the DV bc of confounding variables)

• Cause and effect less certain (pre-existing differences may explain findings)

• Groups may not be comparable (differences between pp reduce reliability of conclusions)

• Harder to control extraneous variables (compared to lab experiments)